Skip to main content

tv   North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Mc Crory  CSPAN  August 26, 2016 5:33pm-7:02pm EDT

5:33 pm
the order of the presentation this morning i'm going to be addressing the united states section two claims under the intent. they are also going to be addressing that claim. and also addressing any questions about implementation. >> the closing argument which i find there. it's a trial effect. that's not the case here. to meet the as a core. if they apply the wrong legal standards they are binding. there are critical errors in the legal analysis that framed the analysis. with to start the start with
5:34 pm
the fact that impacting hb 589th just as they have begin to experience real political gains. in looking at this claim the district court failed to take account of the fact that even as a dependent expert defendant expert testified in north carolina the best predictor is not party registration but race so a proper intent analysis would require the district court to consider whether passage was motivated in part. it committed legal air when you speak to the intent claim are you returning furring to section two or the 14th amendment and is there a difference. >> under the 14th amendment
5:35 pm
is the same standard. in the united states is pressing its claim under the disguise of section two. was it motivated in part by a racial discriminatory purpose. >> you are presenting a constitutional argument here. and yet there is a section two result. should we reach that one first. we think understanding the results claim in this case is helpful in particular to look at the intent claim and the parties would ask the court to reach both the results because of the nature of the release we are asleep -- seeking. it requires the finding. your colleague will order that lasts. she will be addressing the verdict constitutional claim.
5:36 pm
in terms of the intent claim. it is necessary under the voting rights act to re- trigger the coverage requirement under section 3c. that's why it needs to be made under the intent claim. looking at the legal fare i think my colleagues question to you was in your first reading you did the intent claim first. so which is first in your heart. >> we think that both are very strong claims. and then with respect to both what the question is going to we don't do a constitutional issue. the question is here it has that. should we first address that with the resolution. from the constitutional question what is very
5:37 pm
practically important the importance of having some kind of enemy in place in joining the provisions that are discriminatory that could be done under the result claim. and it cannot be done under the intent claim. in failing to account for that. the significance of turnout as my other colleagues said i think we understand all of those arguments basically what you've done in your first presentation now is go over your brief and you can rest assured we have that. i'll be interested in the specifics if you can give this to me for example did you
5:38 pm
present a trial with any expert data predictions on what the two and 14 voter turner --dash out mac what the voter turnout would've been. we explained why that's not possible. they testified that in order to predict what 2014 turnout would have been not just doing the simplistic compare sent to 2010 you need more elections and more states and more data in order to do that. we know what it was under the statute. the more than 1600 voters that cast those were not they could've been counted. we know that nearly over
5:39 pm
12,000 voters registered after the book closing but before the election those would have been able to be advantage of same date registration but they couldn't do that under the statute. the notion that if we are talking about turnout that the united states did improve that this law impacted the number of voters who were able to vote that's simply not true. they were shut out of the political process under this bill. what the district court did and the results analysis is looking to two numbers rather than the numbers i had decided. the district court said what was turnout in 2010 and what was turn on 2014? >> everybody testified you can't measure the impact of an election law just by looking
5:40 pm
at those two numbers. you have a 10,000 in hundred million dollars senate race. the statue prohibits laws that have an abridging effect as well as an out right. it is wrong to set up a standard where you have to show that they are shut out and take extraordinary efforts to overcome that burden as the record in this case shows. they were organized by those to counteract this. you talk about the 72 new voting sites. is there any evidence in the record in terms of whether they were located in black or right communities i think one thing i would like i'm
5:41 pm
interested in your explanation. is there anything in the record about that. one thing i do think is important to clarify in our challenge to the early voting changes is not challenging the only portion of the law it is equalizing the locations within counties. were not challenging that were challenging the cutbacks to the number of days of early voting and not something for which the defendant has had no rush. maybe i misunderstood your argument. it was one of the problems. it was given this authority to move the sites around and they cut in that way discriminate against minority voters is that not part of your plan in the reverse the state has relied more on the fact that the location of early voting
5:42 pm
and that they were used to benefit african-american and democratic voters were not making a claim about the location. race and party are really tied together in north carolina. we are not claiming that the new location discriminated against african-american voters. the cutbacks to early voting eliminating seven days in particularly the particularly on that eliminated day. we are not challenging the location issues under the bill.
5:43 pm
>> so the answer to the original question because you believe that it's a legal air. before the court they are contested. you could've submitted a lot of this case by stipulation. the good turnout goes out. as long as they voted in 2014 than 2010 you can't have a discriminatory burden and that's simply not the case. it's like the same date legislation. day legislation. we saw what that was. it is the voters are more likely to use that.
5:44 pm
and they're more likely to use that because of reasons connected. the removal of that. it was amplified the effects. that's not just speculation. the best evidence in some of that is in the incomplete voter registration that you see in 2014. they can have more problems failing to check a box or something. they are disproportionately african-american. there's an opportunity to correct those errors as a way in which in particular the burdens that the law imposes is cumulative and greater. we take away of early voting. you take away the opportunity for african-american voters. the more you take away that
5:45 pm
early voting more likely they are to end up like that. >> what is your best evidence connecting it to the historical discrimination i think the test that this court set out properly is that you start with a discriminatory burden and so we shared that through the district use and we shared that. amplified the fact that it's it can be more difficult for voters with others mechanisms. given an example of a voter i think some of the individual voters bring the uncontested numerical associate of economic testimony that she is a voter that works six days a
5:46 pm
week 12 hours a day she had voted early in 2008 and 2012 she didn't had time to vote early during the compressed early voting. in 2014. she worked on election day. from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and she could not had gone to her correct polling place in the time allotted because she have to pick up her adult children like 27% of african-americans. multiple adults rely on one car. the same example of carolyn cunningham in the way in which the burdens in this case are cumulative. she was a first-time voter who used that in the pole. she works three jobs to make things me on election day. she didn't know where her correct place was she voted closer to her job. if they have told her she was putting their she would have had time to get to the correct precinct because she risk
5:47 pm
penalties for being a few minutes late at her work. thank you very much your honor. may please the court good morning your honors i am here on behalf of the north carolina state conference of the naacp and other plaintiffs in that case many of him who are whom who are in the courtroom today. i will address the section two claims but hope to comment briefly on the racial intent
5:48 pm
and we do have the constitutional in the section two racial intent claim. i printed primarily focus on results. your honors the plaintiff after being with you in 2014 went to trial and she and those trials we applied the framework from the case and from this court's league of women voters case in terms of how to prove a textbook section two case. we will talk briefly about that. i just want to summarize that and i want to talk about the errors that they made that cause the differences john by the district court to be painted by legal error.
5:49 pm
but per the league of women voter case that is what they use for same day registration. and the other eliminated practices and they do not had photo idaho. in the case of most of those those were proven to be statistically significant which means they are not random which means under all of the race discrimination laws and tells you you need to look further. it doesn't tell you you for prevail what it tells you you need to look for her. -- further. that's what they tell us. >> do you believe that section two result claims have an impact threshold for example
5:50 pm
if out of precinct voting only in the pack to 20 people would be a liable claim? >> racially disproportionate. this is your end results. twenty people are affected and it's racially disproportionate i would think you would need if there was significant test. you might meet that use but you probably would not succeed on the the west of the test particularly when you get to the states justification for what it's doing. it only affects 20 people i think in that totality of the circumstances it might not succeed.
5:51 pm
i think you have to apply that totality of the circumstances in all situations but as a voting rights lawyer looking at that i would not expect a claim to succeed. unless there's some fact i didn't know about here. >> would it be different if we address that. intentional discrimination require that is the end of it. the lot is invalid and needs to be joined if it is tainted by in part by racial intent. yes. let me proceed to the second and third which is once you have this this not all country
5:52 pm
to some of the claims from the defendant. we also proved a connection between the state sorted racial history and its current impacts of racial discrimination that exists in some of those connections are described on pages 12 and 14 of our reply brief. and in terms of the case critical of the fact that the district court found. they did find that connection between the vestiges in the eliminated practices for example they said it's easy to see a connection between certain reasons for ending up in the incomplete queue and literacy in the district court then found that african americans the benchmark which
5:53 pm
is same-day registration that is the interaction that they show us was a classic case of section two. now what caused the district court once you get to those three critical facts and we proved eight of the senate factors what led them astray and not really in favor of the plaintiff. the first thing that the district court did is a created a new requirement. it has not been required in any governing law. in that requirement instead of looking at the connection between the eliminated practice the district court
5:54 pm
said you have to prove that the eliminated practices caused an increase in registration or turnout that is not the causation requirement from league of women voters or any other precedent that is governing this case. they set said on page 347. they failed to carry their burden of showing that same-day registration is responsible for the african-american lead over all over races and registration. at the same thing on 355 on turnout. that is not a causation requirement in the case law and that is the primary mistake that the district court made tell me what it should have said instead. we established the three
5:55 pm
prongs of league of women voters and in the circumstances the district court should have found. if that was really so you would have looked for judgment. there were factual disputes. i'm not going to an easier question. what i would like to know is you were saying he made this causation analysis and what should it had been instead that was the question i'm asking you. i will say briefly at the beginning there were facts in disputes the district court found the critical fact in our favor so what it should have done i think this a relatively
5:56 pm
simple question. you're saying the district court what she's asking you it's pretty straightforward he applied the correct standard and he found all of the facts. that is the only causation requirement. then instead of that. there is nothing more that they needed to do other than apply the league of women voters they found those facts in our favor. i think the district court it
5:57 pm
is exemplified by the district court reliance on the 2014 turnout data to essentially with the connection of the burden. even under the test as you indicate here in the same question i ask you earlier what would be your best evidence to show this connection between the burden and the historical discrimination? >> we presented evidence on each claim so for same-day
5:58 pm
registration we showed literacy disadvantages as well as transportation disadvantages all connected to that same day registration. if you have any literacy issues there are people there who will make sure that you don't leave something out. and we did that for each of the for them to take the eliminated practice. specific to that particular claim. i know don't have much time left.
5:59 pm
there i would say. the comments go to both. and what i would say there is the plaintiff and the evidence shows that they proved the factors in a brief disfavored african americans and we also proved that virtually all of the reasons in the legislative record were simply not true. in the legislator in the face of the record asserted legislative privilege behind any other reason that they might say they did what they did.
6:00 pm
and therefore we believe that there is only one conclusion and that can be made on this record in terms of racial intent and that is that all of the evidence supports and requires the findings that this lock was enacted. >> doesn't shift to the burden. they would try to prove without the racial intent. and they said that the amendment it existed in the original. it is is cited in our brief. we are introducing a piece of evidence that would have shown that the intent.
6:01 pm
forward through the amendment we are not making that claim it's in the record. >> what is your view of the timeline for implementing or dismantling each one of these. she is a leading expert on this. it starts in july thank you. i just want to mention in my four seconds remaining that we also have a claim regarding latino voters in addition we made that claim through the same types of evidence it's not highlighted as much but the evidence is in the foot no and the fact that the district was set up missing it exists in a huge way their
6:02 pm
registration and turnout. may it please the court i will be discussing at the remaining constitutional claims. in 26 amendment claims. there is ample time for this court to remedy the flaws because this court in that same day registration are the loft they have been implemented in the last three elections none of the infrastructure has been dismantled there is just no problem with the same day and out of precinct.
6:03 pm
early voting and pre- registration and there is still ample time to set up the systems and the systems for early voting and to educate voters about these changes. the day after the longest day of the year. we are getting to shorter days. the early voting plans are due july 29 that is not a hard and fast deadline by any stretch of the admitted --dash administration. they continue to review voting plans through august and sometimes even into september asking them to change their early voting trends if there are problems. at least 70% of the counties used this in lieu of a site. it's usually in the same building. if we re- implement 17 days not only do the counties have time to come up with an early
6:04 pm
voting plan they're going to be using at least one of the same sites they already had in place. it's just opening up to voters for an extra seven days although they really only had to do it in the weekdays. there is an opportunity to educate voters about the change that they will not be asked for photo idaho. it goes out and it goes to the printer at the end of august. it's not a hard and fast deadline but the great opportunity for the state to educate voters just like the last three elections they will be available to you here is a new early voting schedule and you will be asked to show a photo idaho these are some of the key deadlines. they are flexible and they get changed so in 2012 it was so great that the state state board of elections during early voting ordered counties
6:05 pm
to provide extra time so these are the same amount of time is necessary either to affirm or reverse this to the courts? >> if you are going to reverse the district court certainly the sooner you rule the better with respect to same-day registration it is the infrastructure and it's in place. we are ready to go. if those are your questions on implementation i would like to turn to the constitutional claims and note that under anderson verdict the state is not free to just give and take away that when mechanisms for participating in the political process. this is a general claim you are making you don't have to shove discrimination to get
6:06 pm
there but we did not address it in the previous one. they're not pursuing this claim. we just had the proof of it because essentially what you are dealing with is a non- affirmative type measures with the exception. and in that context i don't know of many cases it has been pretty active in addressing the claims recently with 26 circuit cases they reach both the section it wasn't as important in the pi stage and the plain language said we can get it if there's a finding of the 14 amendment violation.
6:07 pm
it's the same remedy. i think it is does it justify equitable release. but generally speaking it's not just affecting that. is the discrimination than a general allegation. on the facts they are both very strong. it goes to different remedies. they are just hard to dismiss. they are really stunning. we also see a decade's worth of voting laws expansions created the situation where they relied heavily on those expansions and the court takes them away with no good excuse and that doesn't say anything about the states legislation.
6:08 pm
despite not having much time to discuss them here today the evidence leaves no room for a conclusion other than this. young voters were targeted for exclusion by a number of provisions that were applicable only to them. they were targeted because of the way they were voting and because of the power they were exercising. this isn't constitutional. thank you very much. maybe you can tell me about what you regard as a timeline for implementing or dismantling each of these. >> fortunately for me mr. peter is is going to address that question.
6:09 pm
we spent a lot of time on this and they have represented it for a long time. he is very good information. i'm here representing the defendant. i think the most important part i can make your honor is that we disagree with the plaintiff's position that he did not apply the test that the court articulated in the injection hearing. we test. and then he made extensive findings of fact and conclude it's helpful to be able to
6:10 pm
specifically indicate to the claim the 14th amendment. and the general claim. i get your point in terms of the overall view of it. in terms of the analysis that we take here and what's been presented on the other side is helpful at least from my perspective to get your position on those. >> i'm talking about the section to this claim of my presentation and you talk in section two results i might be missing something. i agree with the content analysis. if i get to that if you read the brief there really is no case that has been issued by any court with facts similar to what we have that were found in the jurisdiction
6:11 pm
where they been found guilty of intentional discrimination. the court found that it followed the procedures that they the court found that the general assembly adopted a two-year rollout timeframe for the federal idaho that have been recommended by the commission that he have proposed. the general assembly mandated a very extensive educational campaign and other findings related to the intent arguments on the 14th amendment or section two compared this case where i'd do not think the facts were as favorable to the state as they are here for example the statue charged a fee for the
6:12 pm
photo idaho when it was first enacted in despite having the state. it was overruled for the lower court's units that has been guilty of intentional discrimination here. we've a more favorable record here for the state. intentional discrimination did not take place. whether that is there or not. i think it's clear i get your point i agree i think the similarities in terms of that was section two as a result. in terms of intentional discrimination. there are some facts here that at least some comment in terms
6:13 pm
of the timing of the enactment of the expanded deal on the same day that they came down in terms of some of the comments previous to that in terms of evidence that was presented in terms of why this was presented the facts they did not find them persuasive. i think the court may be referring to the statement by one legislature no doubt a significant one that they made the comment about. i would refer to that first of the court when they go into detail saying reliant on the statement of one senator to find intentional discrimination by the entire
6:14 pm
general assembly is a very slim read to rest your fighting on. if they have a good counsel why wouldn't it be prudent to wait to see what the supreme court was gonna do with the shelby county case before you decided how you would move forward with legislation. one thing i point out is almost all of the provisions of that have been challenged in this case have been filed previously it wasn't like they just dreamed them up. >> this is somewhat muddled. certainly politics can be the basis for you moving forward on them. and an intentional discrimination case do you maintain that the entity or state can use race as a basis for the partisan goal to
6:15 pm
increase the representation and race being the basis of it knowing that that group the effort to suppress that vote results in a partisan advantage and if it is the basis for them doing it it may be that we haven't made the argument. i've have this discussion recently where the court found the district was not racial we could differentiate. and not talk about it. were talking about intentional discrimination claim. my question goes to whether you made the argument are not. at least i feel something is there that the question comes up at least from the plaintiff perspective that reese was used here is a basis for suppressing the minority vote that you know what vote
6:16 pm
heavily in that particular instance and i'm only asking is that a legitimate basis under the analysis. my answer to that question we don't make that argument. however i want two-point out that in this case they said that in the act there was something between race and politics. that opinion was made in the context. you didn't make the argument. i'm saying the plaintiff makes an allegation that race was used in this instance as a basis for a partisan goal what is your argument to that this
6:17 pm
is not yours. what is your reaction to this. the evidence does not say that that happened in the district court found that did not happen. they go something like that. undermining the progress of a racial group. with discrimination and it was to come increasingly active there was more of the intensive. it was all brought up. ..
6:18 pm
>> >> yes but that is the same statutory provision but where those statements were made this goes back to this section of the results with
6:19 pm
the members of of protected class of the candidates of their choice they drop of the less opportunity than other members to participate in the political process so that was the key inquiry. you don't get to those societal conditions and tell that you clear the first part of the test of the tallest election process places that burden the results them as opportunity for members of the protected class. and the judge schroeder religiously applied that test with the detailed findings that they fail to carry their burden in that respect.
6:20 pm
>> so what you are talking about here your first impression is you have to demonstrate the and you would with this section rollback to intent you don't have that indirect evidence. >> first of all to engage did that discrimination. >> i understand that the bad injury element is stronger with the results test that has to be stronger? but i would have thought that was part and parcel talking about the injury
6:21 pm
that has to be stronger because of intentional discrimination. >> i have to apologize with this question because there is not a law of guidance from the supreme court. >> excuse me we are aware of that. [laughter] >> so all be can-do is look what type of clothes we can discern what. mean no that you still have to prove discriminatory results. but you also have to prove purposeful discrimination. did it was exactly the same. >> but the difference is the
6:22 pm
14th amendment to have purposeful discrimination. and disprove the results. singh began always go to the results? >> to take that unprecedented step that italy happens once in the history of the country with that effective pre-clearance requirement. you don't get that simply by proving to the results claim. it to be in a pre-claret situation. >> and what i am trying to do that dates were exactly
6:23 pm
the same element. it just doesn't make sense. >> >> i apologize if i don't clarify this there is the purposeful discrimination. >> you have to show more injury impact but that does some possible to me. [laughter] >> and i defer to the court's interpretation. >> >> and in addition to purposeful discrimination so
6:24 pm
what's the difference. >> have with that purposeful discrimination that this state is under the pre-clear its obligation. that is purposeful discrimination and that there are precious few cases that is by a district court that they found was not purposeful discrimination and that the case has spent reversed it is that quintessential on fact that relies upon.
6:25 pm
>> i grieve with you laugh laugh. >> i apologize if i've not answering your question is denied but the evidence dealing with the surge, attend years prior that they always claim that is adversely affected for the house and for the senate. and for the opportunity gained with those provisions.
6:26 pm
that looks pretty bad to be. >> if i could persuade you civic and there is uh couple of promises that there is a correlation between same-day registration in the pre-registration with that participation rate with the 2008 and 2012 alexian. -- election. i have never been in the trial with more experts with every university in the country with the cross state analysis but day have done
6:27 pm
them none of those and across analysis of the increase of the turnout of registration. with so there is evidence there are states like north carolina and virginia had under last time the registration rates went up and it was our contention that they had failed to prove a link between those repeal practices and increase the participation by latin americans. so then we went to trial
6:28 pm
with the 2014 election but that is the only election we at. after we have the 2014 election cynic is that something with that intentional discrimination? >> but we are going back and forth. did with that initial question the legal issue deals with the application and if that district court applies directly with that rational basis. >> you read his opinion he makes factual findings that he relied upon for the discrimination civic 80
6:29 pm
employee? >> i am not sure what you mean. >> with that intentional discrimination. >> what is that? and despite all the arguments that have been made. there is a similar way to other bills. to soften and the alleged impact is a very significant amendment. that if the bill drops from 17 down at 10.
6:30 pm
and then there is gamesmanship and placed in areas of democratic voters. so the reason why the legislature cut to have equal treatment. >> is a that closer to rational? >> and the rational basis issue is a completely different question. >> and what they do to apply the law. if you did not apply the law correctly and my question to
6:31 pm
you that it does seem to me but if it does would that have spent? >> i do think it is a good question. >> that i will ask the question i am not asking my question. my question is assuming the plaintiff says that they did on irrational basis preview. said america would have been improper before they got to arlington heights. that is about fifth on the list.
6:32 pm
>> that would be proper to apply that rational basis? >> that would have been proffered it one dash proper . to analyze a statute. whether those rational regions -- reasons for the legislature and with that legislative history. and for early voting they decided they were not happy with the games mentioned at the county board of elections so having most
6:33 pm
sites in a single county treated the same way. with the potential for gamesmanship. then senator stein offer the amendment suggesting despite the reduction that they each were required to keep the same number of hours so for example, in 2014 and then 2012 use this same number of hours as 2016. it will require that they extend uh evening hours. >> is there a waiver provision? >> but whoever it is in in
6:34 pm
the majority could dictate what the plans would be. that requires a majority vote they have three republican appointees they cannot reduce the number of hours limassol three numbers agree. >> out of 100 counties? they are all lying about way ? >> the governor decides to is the majority owner. >> but for the benefit of the public of the democratic governor.
6:35 pm
>> why did this show that public assistance quick. >> i cannot answer that question steven gifford getting back to the discrimination than the question i am asking if you don't know you just don't know. or why he would exclude public assistance identification civic i have to confess it may have been. i don't know. >> item number anybody proposed that may have been able say so but there were with specific. >> but i don't know if there
6:36 pm
was a vote over those statutes to allow that public assistance identification. >> wide is somebody asked you to do more? that is my question. >> because it was reasonable for them for the creation of the department of motor vehicles having the offices all over the state. we heard all of the bashing propagates -- throw the case . but if in the stead -- the statute specifically of those demographics? >> i will ask you a question my honor. [laughter]
6:37 pm
>> we have spent together a law of times but let's keep it the way we are that i will ask the questions it is simply of the racial data information if the of legislature did sow knowing now that would affect minority voters can you respond to that quick. >> that these laws could be subject at the time the data was passed but even after section five went away is prudent to for that information in fact, asking the justice department if
6:38 pm
that would have said worse or better and the justice department basically said we cannot answer that question. so few are concerned with the laws prohibiting discrimination against minorities that is the degree of the racial demographics civic then you may have a legitimate reason for asking that that is early voting is more likely that they're not white dtb possessed by them with a lack of transportation is that the type of information
6:39 pm
>> answer the question. >> first of all whether intentional discrimination with the use of disparity. that is the first point. >> is that what this united states supreme court? >> because there is the result. >> but i ask that specific question that could go either way but at times to
6:40 pm
be kicked off by example with that information of these particular procedures was higher among the minority communities. >> they had knowledge the state board of elections report indicated they were unable to match african-americans the same as whites but that they could not match them the state board said that the report was inflated because there was also a tough problems in the state took that information and adopted the rollout . before they decided to mandate was unprecedented as down by the
6:41 pm
educational campaign to educate people on foot or identification and help them to get one so they got the impression taking appropriate steps to do something about that. >> your honor if it pleases the court i know the north carolina attorney general's office the lead taken hold is the timeline and i think it may be simpler conceptually but what to make sure the court is aware of the practical consideration the general election is 20 weeks from today someone to make sure the court is aware what will happen in those 20 weeks a think it may be simplest defy take it by each of of mechanisms we are talking about with the precinct provision voting border identification but council
6:42 pm
for the plaintiffs said is partially right the and is partially incorrect they don't administer elections is understandable that they don't have quite the information. when it comes to pre-registration and photo identification those are a candle in the system with the state's election management system. there is testimony about that but it passed to be in place in the form that it will be used prior to the beginning of absentee voting as in the beginning of september. so that has to be locked in which it will look like during the election by mid or late august before that can be locked and comedy
6:43 pm
number of tests and essentially mocking elections have to be run to make sure everything is working together properly and will do what it is posted to election day those tests have already started so we are at the point at this point it is very difficult if not impossible to reach coding new information for it to work for the general election. >> we can issue an opinion civic that is not what i saying. not all. with one exception is the registration is too late at this point to be coordinated with the dmv is too late to deal with free registration and have that in place prior to the beginning of september which is when it needs to be in place.
6:44 pm
but it doesn't have the effect it may seem because anyone on november 8 can register so the fact there is not pre-registration built into the system at this point does not prevent anyone who will be 18 at the time to register if they have not already. did they have registered that the primaries. >> so i am thinking pre-registration is an addition to what you already have. to be taken away from things that are there. >> same day registration because of of preliminary injunction to stay emplace pending the decision of the court.
6:45 pm
the other provisionals voting they can handle them and will. if this setup to handle that. but the ideal would be if they would not have any of those things but you cannot do that without risking or messing up other things so accord ordered no same-day registration the autumn of precinct provisional loading in no photo identification the state would have to make sure the county board knows not to use those that leads to the second issue which is training and education. this statewide mandatory training for the county
6:46 pm
board members and election officials are expected to attend this training and it is the training they use that has been set for months for august 8th and 9th which is seven weeks from of yesterday. that is when county elections officials will be trained on what the rules are for the election and kevin of materials to take back to their counties to use for training. if there are any changes made after that date, it becomes an issue not just educating people on the rules but to reeducate them for those of the 40 been told now it is this. it also means there is testimony and evidence in
6:47 pm
the trial court's about the station guide it is a big resources manual that every poll worker has at the station that has all the information how to do everything. that would have to be redesigned in order for accurate information to be available to the county pool workers. >> what does that have? >> currently some of these are joined. >> currently the guide tells them how to implement total identification and seemed registration and out of creasing devoting because those are all in place for this election as it stands now. >> so if we should conclude the ended its ec to strike those? i have been on election
6:48 pm
boards in my youth. >> but for same-day registration with voter identification becomes much harder because it is interwoven into so many aspects of the guide with the process and our also point out that videos that have been prepared used for the primary and for training this time they all deal with photo identification how to implement that. the bottom line is if there are changes if what to make scheerer the election is administered uniformly that they have the best information available, the state board of elections would need to know what changes need to be made well in advance weeks or months in advance of the training to make sure all the training materials are accurate.
6:49 pm
counseled also mentioned the guy that goes out to every household in north carolina 4.5 million but under the contract for the state board of elections and passed to be at the vendor by august 5th. so again the early august date by which things are going into print in the county board officials would be educating in terms of the rules for the election after that point it is an issue of re-education rather than saying these are the rules. with regard to early voting it is important to remember it is the county's and they do have the ability to tell
6:50 pm
other public buildings in the county to use the building on these days for early voting there is then 98 deadline for that if they want to use them for the full . that would increase those 17 days but they have to give that notice by july 22 to be entitled to use that the bigger issue for counties might be poll workers because they are working with budgets from the july through june budget deficit now it is in the process to be said over the next week so if we got into the instance to span the early voting time it might not have the budget to handle the people but. >> i thought there was the same hours provision? been neck there is but it
6:51 pm
depends on if they are able to spread things out to more or adding more time to what they already planned. but it is important to remember as alluded to the under the old statute deal the requirement for the 70 days of early voting was the county board of elections offer early voting during business hours and the last saturday so it is possible that they have to add seven days they may deal with that simply with early voting at the county board of elections office. >> fate is sealed the the department of justice because i did know anybody knows this as well as you.
6:52 pm
>> unless you know, something i don't. [laughter] >> ado what to talk about the substantive points in the implementation points although editing the points are a little more central paris no case like this where a state has been found to be intentionally a discriminatory result case like this. there is no precedent for the rollback that it created to pare the voting rights across the street -- across the state it was the first major construction of the polls since 1965 and destroyed carolina picked up for a left off right after shelby county the district court's legal errors were
6:53 pm
numerous so to your point it does matter, the distinction if we're looking at actual motive on a rational basis is an important we eagle distinction. it was a rational basis the district court said. >> power did you know, that cited not get that answer. >> exact language from the district court that said it would not have been unreasonable for the north carolina senate to wait to see how shelby county came down that is not actual evidence that is them coming up with a rational basis but the important point is the senate was in just sitting on the voter identification bill waiting to see the ministry of burden it put together all of the other changes to dramatically expand the scope of this and contrary that these were
6:54 pm
just percolating summer atoll's create a version to include public assistance. post shelby they take that out for no reason and the district court recognizes that he says they could have surmised that. so these are not actual reasons of a rational basis. if you don't look for motive you commit legal there with the wrong conclusion.
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
have requested the information? >> the post shelby with uh
6:57 pm
duty to comply with the section number five? but they knew the disparate impact of these provisions there are tons of election law provisions every year but those that were pulled then to shelby was the disparate impact of racial minority voters. so if there are separate bills dealing with all these provisions there just not combined. >> i am not sure there was the odd precinct build it was proposing to eliminate that and i could be wrong but there were bills wanting to eliminate pre-registration to cut early voting.
6:58 pm
>> but none had been heard. that is an extensive amount of material. so i do want to emphasize that this court in 2014 and the size the district court committed legal error the number of voters that were disenfranchised. and the basic truth even one disenfranchised voter is too many the facts that he found to be disenfranchised to save voter disenfranchisement to beat under resurfacing is not
6:59 pm
accessible and they may have set a trading and that can be moved. they may have a contract if the federal court rules that they are discriminatory and unconstitutional there is ample time to educate the of voters cynical take the case under advisement and ask the clerk and then we will come down to brief all of the lawyers.
7:00 pm
. .
7:01 pm
>> when did you first think about writing buyers remorse? >> i cannot give you the date but it was while i was sitting in the white house briefing room , and maybe for the 15th or 20th time i was so frustrated by hearing president obama, the man i voted for for twice. i'm glad i did, but announcing measures or making arguments or making moves that i thought betrayed the promise that he had made to the progressives and doing what
left
right

21 Views

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on